# Do Away With The U.S. Senate?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [August 29, 2006, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595 "2006-08-29T00:04:16Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/21 "2006-08-29T03:34:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Remember, also, that any institutional barrier which makes it harder to enact legislation likewise makes it harder to amend or repeal legislation.
Not necessarily. You could always enact mandatory sundown provisions on every piece of legislation, or jigger the rules so that it takes say 60% to pass a bill but only 40% to repeal one.
---
### Author:  [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/22 "2006-08-29T03:35:26Z")
Based upon the ridiculousness that regularly makes it through the Hourse of Representatives only to get more wisely defeated in the Senate, if we are going to eliminate one of the two, go for the House.
---
### Author:  [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/23 "2006-08-29T03:42:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> The more important question is how the established totality of state power is to allocated as between the legislative and executive branches. I say the presidency has grown far too strong and needs a stronger, therefore more streamlined, Congress to balance it.
I’m not optimistic that a more “streamlined” system would lead to a check on the presiden’t power. I don’t think the Powers that Be on either side really want that-- in other words, everyone gets hepped up about it when their guy’s not the one in power but they know they’ll want those powers in place when it’s their turn.
I think a more “streamlined” process would just lead to more bullshit, knee-jerk legislation based on moral panics. The cycle of politics is to find something and make perople afraid of it while simultaneously offering them a solution. With the system the way it is, a politician can propose anything he likes, knowing in his heart-of-hearts that it’ll probably get shot down in debate. He can claim he tried to do something to solve the “problem” but was stymied by his opposition-- which is why you should vote for his party if you know what’s good for you.
Making issues pass both houses is one way of giving “cool-off” time. By the time the issue winds its way through comittee and onto the floor for debate, there’s a chance the public will be distracted by something else. Of course, for sensible legislation the process can seem frustrating, but I’ve always been a big believer that the wheels of government should turn very slowly.
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/24 "2006-08-29T03:53:02Z")
If someone wants to argue that there should be more proportional representation in the Senate than the current two-per-state rules, I am not excited about hammering that out.
However, the notion of getting rid of a “senior” house that will impede stupidity is abhorrent to me. I find it interesting that **BrainGlutton** is arguing so forcefully for an action that would have, if implemented in the last couple of years, guaranteed the passage of an anti-flag desecration amendment, an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment, an anti-abortion amendment, and, most likely, an “English as the official language” amendment to be passed to the states. (Maybe he believes that the states would be smart enough to prevent the adoption of those amendments, but given the history of anti-same-sex-marriage laws, and the fervor that can be whipped up with sufficient media play, I am less sanguine about that outcome.)
The Senate can block good legislation, but it has a decent (hardly perfect) record of keeping truly stupid laws off the books.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/25 "2006-08-29T03:53:32Z")
While I agree that the method of electing senators has some inequities, I support the existence of the Senate as a whole. It serves the purpose it was intended for; to serve as a more deliberative counterweight to the House of Representatives.
---
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/26 "2006-08-29T04:24:49Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#):
>
> No, they don’t know better; the Alaskans and Rhode Islanders would get screwed. But i’m not seeing your point.
>
> Under the current system (if i’m understanding it correctly) Alaskans, Rhode Islanders, and Californians have equal representation in the Senate. This means that legislation will (in theory) not be the will of any one of those states, but a collective compromise by all of them.
>
> Under a proportional representation system, Californians would dominate. This means that legislation would most likely favour California over the other two states. Alaskans and Rhode Islanders would get screwed, as I said. Californians on the other hand would recieve the opposite. Which, to me, seems fair; there’s more Californians. Overall, most _people_ are not getting screwed.
Yes, but if it’s _always_ the Alaskans who get screwed, why on Earth would they stay in the Union?
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/27 "2006-08-29T04:38:21Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#):
>
> While I agree that the method of electing senators has some inequities, I support the existence of the Senate as a whole. It serves the purpose it was intended for; to serve as a more deliberative counterweight to the House of Representatives.
How is the Senate any more “deliberative” than the House?
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/28 "2006-08-29T04:45:12Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> How is the Senate any more “deliberative” than the House?
Due to the composition and (generally) the large amount of votes required to pass legislation it is not as reactionary as the House. As **tomndebb** said before, the House often passes unconscionably bad legislation that dies in the Senate.The Senate is not quite so beholden to the people, by design- the 6 year term is much more of a buffer to Senators than the 2 year term is to Representatives. Therefore, they are far less likely to pass nonsensical legislation than the House, whose members are more or less always running for re-election and are therefore far more susceptible to the whims of the populace.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/29 "2006-08-29T04:49:05Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#):
>
> Due to the composition and (generally) the large amount of votes required to pass legislation it is not as reactionary as the House.
It requires **fewer** votes to pass a bill in the Senate because there are fewer members, and the word “reactionary” [does not mean what you think it does.](http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reactionary)
---
### Author:  [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/30 "2006-08-29T04:54:27Z")
It requires a larger percentage from a smaller number to get something passed. Therefore each vote is worth more and is harder to get, requiring compromise.
And I meant exactly what I said. You can add whatever political appelation you like to the word, but the Senate is less likely to do something without deliberation, i.e. they don’t immediately react to things, which satisfies the first part of your definition, and therefore they are more conservative in their behaviors, which satisfies the second part of your definition.
---
### Author:  [@cerberus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cerberus)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/31 "2006-08-29T04:55:12Z")
1. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
2. The US House is the representative, “vox populi” component of the legislature, designed to represent the mass electorate by direct election, accountable in the short term via two-year terms.
3. The original design of the US Senate was that of a more reflective body, with longer terms (six years), and selected by the States. The US Senate was to be more reflective than the US House, and was the balancing factor in terms of directly representing state interests at the federal level.
4. A bicameral house is more cumbersome than a unicameral legislature, making it harder to do things: good! A check on legislative power, imposed by the legislators themselves.
The big, great thing in a constitutional republic is that you have the good bits of a democratic government, with the icky mob bits checked and restrained.
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/32 "2006-08-29T04:56:49Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> I find it interesting that **BrainGlutton** is arguing so forcefully for an action that would have, if implemented in the last couple of years, guaranteed the passage of an anti-flag desecration amendment, an anti-same-sex-marriage amendment, an anti-abortion amendment, and, most likely, an “English as the official language” amendment to be passed to the states. (Maybe he believes that the states would be smart enough to prevent the adoption of those amendments, but given the history of anti-same-sex-marriage laws, and the fervor that can be whipped up with sufficient media play, I am less sanguine about that outcome.)
Don’t forget a constitutional amendment takes **three-fourths** of the states to ratify it, and that’s a hard bar to reach. Remember the ERA? And that was just plain common sense. Furthermore, I rather suspect the House would approve things like you mention less often if the Senate weren’t there; as things stand, they can approve crazy amendments and look good to certain of their constituents without running the risk they’ll actually get anywhere.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/33 "2006-08-29T05:15:27Z")
> [@Jim B.](#):
>
> But there **is** a good reason why big states should have more of say than small states. They’re bigger, get it? Giving bigger states more say is more _democratic_. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
>
> Thank you in advance to all who reply 🙂
More democratic != better. Pure democracy is simply tyranny of the majority.
(And mind you, I am a registered democrat, if that matters)
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/34 "2006-08-29T05:32:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> Don’t forget a constitutional amendment takes **three-fourths** of the states to ratify it, and that’s a hard bar to reach. Remember the ERA? And that was just plain common sense. Furthermore, I rather suspect the House would approve things like you mention less often if the Senate weren’t there; as things stand, they can approve crazy amendments and look good to certain of their constituents without running the risk they’ll actually get anywhere.
So far, in 94.4% of states where SSM ballots were offered for referenda, the voters have passed anti-SSM measures. The ERA was a lot more contentious on multiple levels, (what did it actually mean regarding drafting women into the military or ordering them into combat, regarding labor laws protecting women, regarding compelling sports teams to admit women (and shared lockers)?–particularly to 1970s sensibilities). Someone in 2006 might look on it as “common sense,” but then opponents from 1978 can point to the apparent phenomenon that everything that was supposed to have been accomplished by the amendment has been accomplished without it.
It is possible that the House would act more responsibly if it had no safety net of a Senate veto, but I am not quite willing to take that on faith.
> [@](#):
>
> the word “reactionary” does not mean what you think it does.
Actually, its denotive value is exactly correct as he used it–the House reacts to pressure much more easily than does the Senate. It also (since 1994) appears to be more “reactionary” in the political name-calling connotation (burning flags, abortion laws, etc.), so I am not sure why you thought his claim was in error.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/35 "2006-08-29T05:33:39Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> However, the notion of getting rid of a “senior” house that will impede stupidity is abhorrent to me.
Ding ding ding. I’d rather turn the whole government over to a horde of drunken bonobos than make the House of Representatives into the only branch of the legislature.
---
### Author:  [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/36 "2006-08-29T05:41:33Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> Yes, but if it’s _always_ the Alaskans who get screwed, why on Earth would they stay in the Union?
For the same reason California does now; sentimentality, loyalty and the fact that the Feds have a bigger army.
---
### Author:  [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/37 "2006-08-29T05:52:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#):
>
> I say the presidency has grown far too strong and needs a stronger, therefore more streamlined, Congress to balance it.
The cure for too much unfettered strength at the top is not more unfettered strength at the top.
The problems of the last couple of years are far more easily traceable to the influence of political parties on the system than by any inherent problems in the system itself.
The cure for too much strength at the top is more strength at the lower levels, and increasing the individual states’ power is a better solution. Make the Senate stronger by repealing the 17th amendment, and taking its power out of the fickle whim of the manipulable masses.
And get the states out of the business of paying for party-specific elections.
---
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/38 "2006-08-29T13:01:39Z")
The Founding Fathers were an enormously talented and civic-minded bunch and I think they’ve thought this through very well. I think this compromise of equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House has worked very well for over two centuries.
We need the buffering that the Senate provides in addition to the checks provided by the executive and legislative branches. To require that legislation passes though a body where 2/3 isn’t running for reelection within two years is a great check on precisely the type of “tyranny of the majority” legislation that things like SSM bans represent.
In short, it ain’t broke and doesn’t need fixing. The problems we have with government isn’t in how the chairs are set up, it’s who sits in them.
---
### Author:  [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/39 "2006-08-29T13:02:43Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#):
>
> We need the buffering that the Senate provides in addition to the checks provided by the executive and legislative branches.
Scratch “legislative” and substitute “judicial”. Sorry.
---
### Author:  [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)
#### Post date: [August 29, 2006, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595/40 "2006-08-29T13:13:33Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#):
>
> The Founding Fathers were an enormously talented and civic-minded bunch and I think they’ve thought this through very well. I think this compromise of equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House has worked very well for over two centuries.
That’s true enough, but it’s not the reason for the Senate. The Senate was adopted because without it the smaller states would not have ratified the Constitution. So some such compromise would have been necessary regadless of the wisdom and selflessness of the Founding Male Parents.
(It’s also the reason why the Commonwealth of Australia has a similar Senate with equal reprersentation of the states, even though Australia’s Founding Male Parents were not quite as distinguished as those founding the US.)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-away-with-the-u-s-senate/370595.md?page=3)